I think he changed it to “forced” rape (still apparently not getting that any rape is by definition against the victim’s will, and therefore forced).

Statutory rape may have the willing consent of the victim. The state deems that the victim is too young to grant informed consent. And that includes guys and gals as young as 17 year of age, if I remember correctly.

Wow. In Arizona the age of consent is 18 years (according to the above source). Apparently all pregnancies in girls under the age of 18 in Arizona were the result of rape.

Actually, I’m hearing reports that Akin was talking about persons seeking abortions who falsely claim the pregnancy was the result of rape.

My opinion: Akin should have withdrawn from the race simply for saying something so cockamamie that it has liberals up in arms (figuratively speaking!) nationwide.

A Democratic candidate from Florida is claiming that Akin’s statements show that her opponent is out of touch. Seems like a tenuous connection at best.

A person who is not competent to give consent cannot willingly consent. Granted that the statutes may, in reality, be erroneous, and some persons under 18 may actually be competent to give consent, but the laws say otherwise. So in the eyes of the law, the rape is still forceable. But this is just another red hering, that you are so good at introducing, so as to start debate that deflects from the misguided objectives of extreme right wingers.

Tim, it’s not at all a red herring. It’s at the very heart of Akin’s objective. If he’s saying, as I have heard he intended, that by “legitimate rape” he was talking about persons using the allegation of rape to increase their access to abortion then we’re talking about a different misguided objective than if he meant to say something else. Just because you or Mriana doesn’t agree with Akin doesn’t give you the excuse to build straw man arguments out of his statements, and correcting those straw man arguments is not a red herring. It is central. Keep your criticisms of Akin within the bounds of reason and I’ll have little reason to post to this thread. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are many threads here which express views with which I do not agree but in which I do not participate. My goal is not to create distraction but to help produce clearer thinking.

So think clearly already and I"ll bow out.

Whoa! Last line almost escaped comment!

Next, the idea that women routinely falsely claim that their pregnancy is due to rape, is another right wing tactic to press the objective of ending women’s right to choose what to do with their bodies, in regard to abortion.

He didn’t say anything about “routinely,” did he? Funny seeing you express such concern about women’s control of their bodies after you threw young Arizona women under the bus, seeming pretty much okay with the state determining that they can’t responsibly choose to have sex until they’re 18.

You want clearer thinking about what Akin was doing? Please read the following excerpt:

“Writers from the Middle Ages and modern politicians alike have based their arguments on the idea that a trauma of the magnitude of rape can shut down the body’s reproductive system.
The combination of misunderstanding and cherry-picked science even led some to conclude that a woman who says she was raped yet becomes pregnant must have been lying about the attack. Modern proponents of the claim repeat it despite empirical research showing that rape victims are at least as likely to become pregnant as women who have consensual sex, and possibly more likely.”
(from http://news.yahoo.com/rape-trauma-barrier-pregnancy-no-scientific-basis-235231028.html )
That is what Akin was doing.

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Brian, I don’t wish for Arizona females who are less than age 18 to be “thrown under the bus” as you put it, regarding their competence as to deciding when to have sexual relations. I said in my post that the statutory rape laws (that you broguht up) may be erroneous in setting 18 as the age when they gain such competence. I said that some persons below age 18 may actually be competent to make that decision. But I don’t know for sure at what age all teenagers are competent to make this decision. Those laws are in place to protect the kids that are not competent to make that decision at a young age.

Do you want men to be able to use their seductive wiles on 17 yr olds or 16 yr olds or 15 yr olds, or…? At what age would you set the statuatory rape laws?

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Actually, if the two partners are under-aged and within 3 years of age of the other, it is not prosecuted as statutory rape, unless one partner is under 14. If one partner is under 14, it is always considered rape, and the penalties get worse if they are under 12.

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Actually, if the two partners are under-aged and within 3 years of age of the other, it is not prosecuted as statutory rape, unless one partner is under 14. If one partner is under 14, it is always considered rape, and the penalties get worse if they are under 12.

So the intent of the laws, I think, are to protect a prospectively more competent person from sexually preying upon a less competent person. If both parties lack competence in the matter, one is not using “force” on the other.

Anyway, this has little to do with abortion. Thus I suggest again that Brian is skilled in deflecting from a topic in which his perspective is less supportable.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

You want clearer thinking about what Akin was doing? Please read the following excerpt:

“Writers from the Middle Ages and modern politicians alike have based their arguments on the idea that a trauma of the magnitude of rape can shut down the body’s reproductive system.
The combination of misunderstanding and cherry-picked science even led some to conclude that a woman who says she was raped yet becomes pregnant must have been lying about the attack. Modern proponents of the claim repeat it despite empirical research showing that rape victims are at least as likely to become pregnant as women who have consensual sex, and possibly more likely.”
(from http://news.yahoo.com/rape-trauma-barrier-pregnancy-no-scientific-basis-235231028.html )
That is what Akin was doing.

I think you’re close. The analysis you quote lacks the current legal context (it’s talking about the genesis of the idea from many years ago). Today a woman is more likely to be able to obtain an abortion, including a late-term abortion, in conjunction with the claim that the pregnancy occurred because of rape. The “health of the mother” exception may allow for claims of mental distress to suffice as the justification for abortion.

Don’t get me started on this dude. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries and have no intention of ever voting for him, because he acts like an uneducated hillbilly, making me ashamed to be a Missourian. I want out of Missouri.

OTOH, Mriana, I heard a Missourian pro-choice woman proudly proclaim that Missouri is now probably the most informed state on this subject. She sounded confident that after all is said and done the women of Missouri will also refrain from voting for these types of idiots and force the reinstatement of Constitutional Law.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U